alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1121. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(1), (16), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159, 2160

Section, act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title VIII, §882, as added Oct. 31, 1965, Pub. L. 89–308, §9(3), 79 Stat. 1131; amended Feb. 28, 1970, Pub. L. 91–201, title II, §205, 84 Stat. 19; July 12, 1976, Pub. L. 94–350, title V, §515, 90 Stat. 844; Oct. 1, 1976, Pub. L. 94–440, title XIII, §1306(e)(1), 90 Stat. 1463; Ex. Ord. No. 11272, §1–101, Jan. 16, 1981, 46 F.R. 5853, related to effective date, etc., of provisions authorizing cost-of-living annuity increase.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 178

 180

 181

 191

 198

 207

 212

 214

 252

 224

 202

 182

 179

 167

 186

 188

 184

 184

 186

 191

 194

 203

 219

 237

 212

 177

 156

 154

 157

 160

 164

 169

 174

 177

 177

 174

 174

 172

 177

 170

 165

 162

 161

 162

 150

 161

 164

 166

 163

 161

 153

 156

 155

 152

 151

 149

 148

 147

 148

 149

 171

 174

 177

 182

 182

 182

 182

 184

 201

 187

 172

 168

 166

 165

 168

 166

 168

 171

 172

 170

 168

 169

 174

 168

 161

 154

 151

 150

 151

 155

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 18, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Cobbler II Project Planning Area - Potential Wilderness Effects

Interaction between Potential Wilderness Areas and Alternative C Harvest Units and Prescribed Burning

Map depicts areas with wilderness potential

within the Cobbler II project planning boundary.

Also depicts project harvest units for Alternative C.

Legend

Cobbler II Project Planning Area

District Boundary

Grande Ronde IRA

Potential Wilderness Areas

Forest Roads

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Alternative C Harvest Units

Non-Commercial Thinning Units

Prescribed Landscape Burn

H-9

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́
# C_2013342EN.01000101.xml

| 22.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/1

---

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 15 November 2013

to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Latvijas Banka

(ECB/2013/42)

2013/C 342/01

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/387/EU (1), Latvia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation in favour of Latvia referred to in Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession (2) is abrogated with effect from 1 January 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/387/EU (1), Latvia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation in favour of Latvia referred to in Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession (2) is abrogated with effect from 1 January 2014.

1

2

| (3) | Pursuant to Article 43 of the Law on Latvijas Banka, from 1 January 2014 the annual financial statements of Latvijas Banka shall be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Pursuant to Article 43 of the Law on Latvijas Banka, from 1 January 2014 the annual financial statements of Latvijas Banka shall be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council.

| (4) | The external auditors recommended herein are Latvijas Banka's current auditors, who were appointed for the financial years 2012 to 2014, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The external auditors recommended herein are Latvijas Banka's current auditors, who were appointed for the financial years 2012 to 2014,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that SIA Ernst & Young Baltic should be appointed as the external auditors of Latvijas Banka for the financial year 2014.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 15 November 2013.

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

---

(1)  Council Decision 2013/387/EU of 9 July 2013 on the adoption by Latvia of the euro on 1 January 2014 (OJ L 195, 18.7.2013, p. 24).

1

(2)  OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 33.

2

---
1

Filed 12/15/15 C ity of V ictorville v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

CITY OF VICTORVILLE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

Respondent;

RUBEN VARELA,

Real Party in Interest. E064620

(Super.Ct.No. CIVDS 1503260)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. John M. Pachecho,

Judge. Petition granted.

Graves & King, Har vey W. Wimer III and Dennis J. Mahoney for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.2

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and invited real party in interest to file

opposition; none has been received.

We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is

therefore appropriate. ( Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171,

178.)

Plaintiff cannot recover damages based on petitioner’s alleged failure to c apture

and remove the dogs that allegedly attacked him unless petitioner’s failure constituted the

breach of a mandatory duty. (Gov. Code, § 815.6.) Plaintiff identified n o such duty.

The governing ordinances authorized petitioner’s employees to capture or remove vicious

or dangerous animals, but in language which clearly conferred discretion and did not

impose any duty. (See County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th

543.)

Accordingly, the trial court erred in overruling petitioner’s demurrer and the

petition for writ of mandate is granted.

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San

Bernardino County to v acate its order overruling petitioner’s demurrer, and to enter a

new order sustaining the demurrer. In light of plaintiff’s failure to respond in this court,

the demurrer shall be sustained without leave to amend.3

Petitioner is directed to prepare and ha ve the peremptory writ of mandate issued,

copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of

service on all parties. Petitioner to recover its costs, if any.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

KING

Acting P. J.

MILLER

J.
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear by T.D. ATF-451, 66 FR 21668, 21669, May 1, 2001.

§ 26.222 Still wines containing carbon dioxide. ( a ) *General.* Still wines may contain not more than 0.392 gram of carbon dioxide per 100 milliliters of wine; except that a tolerance to this maximum limitation, not to exceed 0.009 gram of carbon dioxide per 100 milliliters of wine, will be allowed where the amount of carbon dioxide in excess of 0.392 gram per 100 milliliters of wine was due to mechanical variations which could not be completely controlled under good commercial practices. Such tolerance will not be allowed where it is found that the limitation of 0.392 gram of carbon dioxide per 100 milliliters of wine is continuously or intentionally exceeded, or where the variation results from the use of methods or equipment not in accord with good commercial practices.
( b ) *Notice required.* Proprietors intending to add carbon dioxide to, or retain carbon dioxide in, still wines to be shipped to the United States shall submit a notice to the appropriate TTB officer. The notice shall show the name and address of the proprietor and shall identify the method or process, the kinds (class and type) of wine, and the type of equipment to be used. A corrected notice shall be filed if there is any change (except for minor changes) in the information contained in the notice.
( c ) *Filing and disposition of notice.* The notice required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be submitted in triplicate to the appropriate TTB officer, who shall retain one copy, forward one copy to the Commissioner of Finance of the Virgin Islands, and return one copy to the proprietor. The proprietor shall keep the notice available for examination by insular agents.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512-0352) (Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1331, as amended (26 U.S.C 5041))
[T.D. ATF-62, 44 FR 71715, Dec. 11, 1979, as amended by T.D. ATF-172, 49 FR 14943, Apr. 16, 1984]
### §§1 to 5. Repealed. June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §1002(a), formerly §902(a), 52 Stat. 1059; renumbered §1002(a), Pub. L. 111–31, div. A, title I, §101(b)(2), June 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1784

Section 1, act June 30, 1906, ch. 3915, §1, 34 Stat. 768, made it unlawful to manufacture adulterated or misbranded foods or drugs in Territories or District of Columbia and provided penalty for violations. See sections 331 and 333 of this title.

Section 2, act June 30, 1906, ch. 3915, §2, 34 Stat. 768, prohibited introduction, shipment, delivery or sale of adulterated or misbranded foods or drugs in interstate or foreign commerce, provided penalty for violations and exempted exports conforming to specifications of foreign purchaser and not in conflict with laws of foreign country importing the same. See sections 331, 333 and 381 of this title.

Section 3, acts June 30, 1906, ch. 3915, §3, 34 Stat. 768; Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 141, §1, 37 Stat. 736, authorized Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, and Commerce to make uniform rules and regulations for enforcement of food and drug laws, including collection and examination of specimens. See section 371 of this title.

Section 4, act June 30, 1906, ch. 3915, §12, 34 Stat. 772, provided that act or omission of officer, agent, and so forth, of corporation, shall be deemed act or omission of corporation.

Section 5, act June 30, 1906, ch. 3915, §12, 34 Stat. 772, defined "territory" and "person". See section 321 of this title and section 1 of Title 1, General Provisions.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §1002(a), formerly §902(a), 52 Stat. 1059; renumbered §1002(a), Pub. L. 111–31, div. A, title I, §101(b)(2), June 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1784, which repealed sections 1 to 5, 7 to 14, and 15 of this title, provided that the repeal of those sections should take effect upon the effective date of act June 25, 1938, which was to take effect twelve months after the date of its enactment. Act June 23, 1939, ch. 242, §2(b), 53 Stat. 854, provided that: "The provisions of such act of June 30, 1906, as amended, to the extent that they impose, or authorize the imposition of, any requirement imposed by section 403(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [section 343(k) of this title], shall remain in force until January 1, 1940."
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 5, 2011
 Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
  Delaware
    
    000-26966
    
    84-0846841(State or other jurisdiction
    
    (Commission
    
    (IRS Employerof incorporation)
    
    File Number)
    
    Identification No.)
 1625 Sharp Point Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado
    
    80525(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (970) 221-4670
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition
   Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 Exhibit Index
 99.1
    
    
    Press release announcing the Companys
updated guidance for the second fiscal quarter of 2011.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.Date:  July 5, 2011
    /s/ Thomas O. McGimpseyThomas O. McGimpseySenior Vice President, General Counsel &  
Corporate
Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    
    Description99.1
    
    
    Press release dated July 5, 2011 by Advanced Energy
Industries, Inc., reporting updated guidance for the
second fiscal quarter of 2011.
(No. 6579

#### Gedas Grinis, M.D., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed July 14, 1972.*

Dr. Gedas Grinis, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Perlin, C.J.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 329

 337

 395

 491

 572

 495

 430

 338

 319

 316

 386

 428

 458

 436

 449

 384

 482

 435

 394

 356

 351

 352

 273

 319

 371

 335

 458

 416

 441

 413

 189

 191

 189

 186

 194

 194

 192

 187

 192

 189

 191

 189

 187

 184

 184

 185

 184

 183

 182

 180

 177

 174

 171

 170

 168

 168

 166

 164

 162

 161

 214

 233

 255

 270

 267

 255

 239

 227

 208

 212

 224

 227

 225

 222

 230

 231

 249

 236

 225

 222

 220

 207

 191

 197

 197

 208

 211

 209

 219

 209

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 9, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
490 P.2d 683

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger RANNE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 692.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Oct. 29, 1971.

Harvey C. Markley, Lovington, for defendant-appellant.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., C. Emery Cuddy, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plainti f f- appellee.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Defendant’s conviction of robbery, aggravated battery and aggravated burglary was affirmed on appeal. State v. Ranne, 80 N.M. 188, 453 P.2d 209 (Ct.App.1969). He is now before this court on appeal from an order denying, without hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 93 [§ 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1970)].

Defendant’s first point on appeal is that there was a misunderstanding between the court and defendant at the time of an alleged “plea bargaining session” which resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The motion raises no such contention and accordingly cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Section 21-2-1(20), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1970). Even if this contention was raised it is disposed of by State v. Leyba, 80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211 (Ct.App.1969).

Defendant’s second point of appeal is that the testimony of the State’s witness at trial is contradicted by a State’s witness who testified at the preliminary hearing but not at trial and that this resulted in prejudice to the defendant. This contention is disposed of by State v. Minns, 81 N.M. 428, 467 P.2d 1000 (Ct.App.1970).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and COWAN, J., concur.
§ 404.1725 Request for approval of a fee. ( a ) *Filing a request.* In order for your representative to obtain approval of a fee for services he or she performed in dealings with us, he or she shall file a written request with one of our offices. This should be done after the proceedings in which he or she was a representative are completed. The request must contain— ( 1 ) The dates the representative's services began and ended;
( 2 ) A list of the services he or she gave and the amount of time he or she spent on each type of service;
( 3 ) The amount of the fee he or she wants to charge for the services;
( 4 ) The amount of fee the representative wants to request or charge for his or her services in the same matter before any State or Federal court;
( 5 ) The amount of and a list of any expenses the representative incurred for which he or she has been paid or expects to be paid;
( 6 ) A description of the special qualifications which enabled the representative, if he or she is not an attorney, to give valuable help in connection with your claim; and
( 7 ) A statement showing that the representative sent a copy of the request for approval of a fee to you.
( b ) *Evaluating a request for approval of a fee.* ( 1 ) When we evaluate a representative's request for approval of a fee, we consider the purpose of the social security program, which is to provide a measure of economic security for the beneficiaries of the program, together with— ( i ) The extent and type of services the representative performed;
( ii ) The complexity of the case;
( iii ) The level of skill and competence required of the representative in giving the services;
( iv ) The amount of time the representative spent on the case;
( v ) The results the representative achieved;
( vi ) The level of review to which the claim was taken and the level of the review at which the representative became your representative; and
( vii ) The amount of fee the representative requests for his or her services, including any amount authorized or requested before, but not including the amount of any expenses he or she incurred.
( 2 ) Although we consider the amount of benefits, if any, that are payable, we do not base the amount of fee we authorize on the amount of the benefit alone, but on a consideration of all the factors listed in this section. The benefits payable in any claim are determined by specific provisions of law and are unrelated to the efforts of the representative. We may authorize a fee even if no benefits are payable.
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.1475 Filing briefs with the Appeals Council.

Upon request, the Appeals Council shall give you and all other parties a reasonable opportunity to file briefs or other written statements about the facts and law relevant to the case. A copy of each brief or statement should be filed for each party.
1 WARNELL OWENS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5062

____________ ____________/

Opinion filed March 16, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Warnell Owens , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, THOMAS, and MAKAR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer  Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on
March 21, 2008 and Amendment No. 2 thereto (the "Report") of ATS Corporation (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Edward H.
Bersoff, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|Date: April 4, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/EDWARD H. BERSOFFEdward H. Bersoff Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### § 403.140 If the Commissioner authorizes testimony, what will be the scope and form of that testimony?

The employee's testimony must be limited to matters that were specifically approved. We will provide testimony in the form that is least burdensome to SSA unless you provide sufficient information in your application for SSA to justify a different form. For example, we will provide an affidavit or declaration rather than a deposition and a deposition rather than trial testimony.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       9,318,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,735,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   931,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,434,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,615,000
<PP&E>                                       2,195,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,524,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,034,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   108,868,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,524,000
<SALES>                                      7,038,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,467,000
<CGS>                                        3,271,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,091,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,472,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,472,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,472,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)


</TABLE>